5 ms·

Redundant (with uBlock Origin) on Firefox: https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions#-dont-bother https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Ex

Redundant (with uBlock Origin) on Firefox: https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions#-dont-bother https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions#-don...

npteljes 1y ago
Thanks for linking this page. I am using multiple of these addons, but some years passed since I figured this setup, so it was time for reconsider the choices.
- ghostwords 1y ago
  PB is different from other extensions and works well with ad blockers. If you like what PB does, feel free to keep using it. For more, see https://privacybadger.org/#How-is-Privacy-Badger-different-from-Disconnect%2c-Adblock-Plus%2c-Ghostery%2c-and-other-blocking-extensions https://privacybadger.org/#How-is-Privacy-Badger-different-f...
ls612 1y ago
I’ve been using both uBO and privacybadger together since time immemorial does uBO truly have 100% coverage of all privacybadger filter rules?
- Joel_Mckay 1y ago
  Each offer something slightly different in various contexts. uBlock covers most use-cases, but not every site is completely clean. In general, setting up NoScript per-site filters (like blocking XSS, webgl or LAN resources) is more practical in some ways, and offers deeper control of resources needed for core page functionality. Often, websites only really require their host, a JavaScript CDN, and some media CDN/cloud URI. Modern sites often insert telemetry or malware/ad services, and will load much faster without that nonsense. =3
  - lblume 1y ago
    In that case, NoScript seems to really be a misnomer. It should be called SomeScript or OnlyScript instead.
    - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
      Indeed, the per-site rule sets are a relatively recent addition, but offer a better application layer filtering solution. Anecdotally, we have seen a correlation between minimal resource domain/redirect counts, and site content quality. =3
mixmastamyk 1y ago
Believe PB rewrites search engine links, which I don’t think UBO does, at least by default: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/new-privacy-badger-prevents-google-mangling-more-your-links-and-invading-your https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/new-privacy-badger-pre...
- reaperducer 1y ago
  Irony: When I click that EFF link, my firewall goes all Browser wants to connect to assets-usa.mkt.dynamics.com on TCP port 443
  - nvr219 1y ago
    Awkward
  - Barbing 1y ago
    Wonder when all analytics and ads will be first party (presumably years away since it’d ostensibly be so tough for the average small site). Enjoying it while it lasts I suppose.
slumberlust 1y ago
Shortsighted. Especially given what happened to adblock.
- PrivacyDingus 1y ago
  Prefer not to expose myself tbh: https://adtechmadness.wordpress.com/2020/03/27/detecting-privacy-badgers-canvas-fp-detection/ https://adtechmadness.wordpress.com/2020/03/27/detecting-pri...
  - ghostwords 1y ago
    This detection is off by default. For more, see https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/10/privacy-badger-learns-block-ever-more-trackers https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/10/privacy-badger-learns-...
kmacdough 1y ago
I use both to good effect. Similar goal, but not the same in practice. UBO is a request-level filtering system. It blocks certain requests based on a set of patterns. It's incredibly simple, incredibly fast, and surprisingly effective, since most adds and trackers are served by 3rd party sources that can be recognized. This doesn't catch everything, though, and trackers can be sent alongside the core website content. PB provides content-level filtering that can catch some things that slip by UBO.
- zamadatix 1y ago
  PB does things uBO doesn't bother with, but not because uBO only has request level filtering. E.g. uBO also employs content level filtering and methods such as scriptlet injection to neuter/stub specific tracker functionality.
ghostwords 1y ago
uBlock Origin is an excellent privacy tool. However, uBlock Origin is not a replacement for Privacy Badger (nor is Privacy Badger a replacement for uBlock Origin). For more see https://privacybadger.org/#How-is-Privacy-Badger-different-from-Disconnect%2c-Adblock-Plus%2c-Ghostery%2c-and-other-blocking-extensions https://privacybadger.org/#How-is-Privacy-Badger-different-f... That wiki page is a bunch of nonsense. For example: >Redundant with Total Cookie Protection (dFPI) https://privacybadger.org/#Is-Privacy-Badger-compatible-with-Firefox%27s-built-in-content-blocking https://privacybadger.org/#Is-Privacy-Badger-compatible-with...

Redundant (with uBlock Origin) on Firefox: https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions#-dont-bother https://github.com/arkenfox/user.js/wiki/4.1-Extensions#-don...

npteljes 1y ago

Thanks for linking this page. I am using multiple of these addons, but some years passed since I figured this setup, so it was time for reconsider the choices.

ghostwords 1y ago
PB is different from other extensions and works well with ad blockers. If you like what PB does, feel free to keep using it. For more, see https://privacybadger.org/#How-is-Privacy-Badger-different-from-Disconnect%2c-Adblock-Plus%2c-Ghostery%2c-and-other-blocking-extensions https://privacybadger.org/#How-is-Privacy-Badger-different-f...

ls612 1y ago

I’ve been using both uBO and privacybadger together since time immemorial does uBO truly have 100% coverage of all privacybadger filter rules?

Joel_Mckay 1y ago
Each offer something slightly different in various contexts. uBlock covers most use-cases, but not every site is completely clean. In general, setting up NoScript per-site filters (like blocking XSS, webgl or LAN resources) is more practical in some ways, and offers deeper control of resources needed for core page functionality. Often, websites only really require their host, a JavaScript CDN, and some media CDN/cloud URI. Modern sites often insert telemetry or malware/ad services, and will load much faster without that nonsense. =3
- lblume 1y ago
  In that case, NoScript seems to really be a misnomer. It should be called SomeScript or OnlyScript instead.
  - Joel_Mckay 1y ago
    Indeed, the per-site rule sets are a relatively recent addition, but offer a better application layer filtering solution. Anecdotally, we have seen a correlation between minimal resource domain/redirect counts, and site content quality. =3

mixmastamyk 1y ago

Believe PB rewrites search engine links, which I don’t think UBO does, at least by default: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/new-privacy-badger-prevents-google-mangling-more-your-links-and-invading-your https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/09/new-privacy-badger-pre...

reaperducer 1y ago
Irony: When I click that EFF link, my firewall goes all Browser wants to connect to assets-usa.mkt.dynamics.com on TCP port 443
- nvr219 1y ago
  Awkward
- Barbing 1y ago
  Wonder when all analytics and ads will be first party (presumably years away since it’d ostensibly be so tough for the average small site). Enjoying it while it lasts I suppose.

slumberlust 1y ago

Shortsighted. Especially given what happened to adblock.

PrivacyDingus 1y ago
Prefer not to expose myself tbh: https://adtechmadness.wordpress.com/2020/03/27/detecting-privacy-badgers-canvas-fp-detection/ https://adtechmadness.wordpress.com/2020/03/27/detecting-pri...
- ghostwords 1y ago
  This detection is off by default. For more, see https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/10/privacy-badger-learns-block-ever-more-trackers https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/10/privacy-badger-learns-...

kmacdough 1y ago

I use both to good effect. Similar goal, but not the same in practice. UBO is a request-level filtering system. It blocks certain requests based on a set of patterns. It's incredibly simple, incredibly fast, and surprisingly effective, since most adds and trackers are served by 3rd party sources that can be recognized. This doesn't catch everything, though, and trackers can be sent alongside the core website content. PB provides content-level filtering that can catch some things that slip by UBO.

zamadatix 1y ago
PB does things uBO doesn't bother with, but not because uBO only has request level filtering. E.g. uBO also employs content level filtering and methods such as scriptlet injection to neuter/stub specific tracker functionality.

ghostwords 1y ago

uBlock Origin is an excellent privacy tool. However, uBlock Origin is not a replacement for Privacy Badger (nor is Privacy Badger a replacement for uBlock Origin). For more see https://privacybadger.org/#How-is-Privacy-Badger-different-from-Disconnect%2c-Adblock-Plus%2c-Ghostery%2c-and-other-blocking-extensions https://privacybadger.org/#How-is-Privacy-Badger-different-f... That wiki page is a bunch of nonsense. For example: >Redundant with Total Cookie Protection (dFPI) https://privacybadger.org/#Is-Privacy-Badger-compatible-with-Firefox%27s-built-in-content-blocking https://privacybadger.org/#Is-Privacy-Badger-compatible-with...